Friday, April 02, 2004

Atlanta Braves

Released OF Gary Matthews Jr.

Do decisions based on spring training statistics that contradict a player’s entire career ever work out? Little Sarge is no great shakes, but he’s a suitable 4th outfielder, something the Braves don’t feel they need.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Oh, Colin, we all know how long it took you to finally sit down and write your dissertation. I'd have had it done it a couple of hours and it would have been so good, I wouldn't even have had to defend it.

DLF: I've never heard of Ryan Baker, for what it's worth. He's certainly not a "name" prospect, even in the second or third tier of Atlanta's system. Seems to me to be a lot like that third guy that Schuerholtz shipped to LA in the Sheffield deal.

You know, "Brian Jordan, Odalis Perez and That Other Guy." Adam Baker is "that other guy" in relation to Tim Spooneybarger, of all people. I'd be shocked if he ever suited up in an MLB game.

Wait, no, this is a team being Loria-ed. Ryan Baker may very well start for them at some point.

If Hampton makes a comeback, expect to hear a lot of people sing the praises of Leo Mazzone. I do not know whether there is something structurally wrong with Hampton or if his mechanics were screwed up, but he does seem to have been more effected by his time in Coors Field than most pitchers.

I do not know if Hampton will adjust well to Mazzone theory. Hampton simply has not thrown strikes and does not work quickly. If he does start throwing the ball in the strike zone more often, he should be good for at least 13 wins and 200 innings per season. Even at his reduced price, I do not think that is a good buy.

Jim, I read that they saved about $15 mil. That's pretty good and they get a nice reliever and an decent CF (I still think Pierre can have some value). I think they did the right thing.

I am not a major league pitcher, so I guess I can't walk in these guys' shoes. However, if I were a pitcher of any stature, there is no way I would take the money and go to Coors Field. I can't think of a pitcher who has prospered there for more than a year or two.

Well, as driven as these guys are, it's not surprising that they want to take on the biggest challenge. Imagine if you were THE guy who could tame Coors? You'd have to go down as one of the all-time greats.

First Darryl Kile and now Mike Hampton have crashed and burned in Denver. Kile was able to make a pertial comeback in St. Louis. It will be interesting to see how well Hampton pitches away from the thin air.

Kile did more than make a partial comeback. He was as good or better after Coors than he was before it. I'd expect Hampton to get back near where he was, at least.

I do not know if Hampton will adjust well to Mazzone theory. Hampton simply has not thrown strikes and does not work quickly

I think in those respects he is in fact Mazzone-compatible. That is, check out some of Tom Glavine's seasonal walk numbers. He's hit as high as 97 walks allowed in a season, and is consistently in that 70+ range. Not quite as up there as Hampton, but not far below.

In Atlanta it's called "not giving in to the hitter", and is seen as a Good Thing. As a fan, it's one of the things that drives me nuts about Glavine. Sometimes I just yell at the TV, "Throw a strike, dammit!"

and expecting it to reappear might be like Waiting for Godot. And by that I mean a bit confusing and not terribly fun to watch. ;)

Dr. K says: "Atlanta is indicating that it would rather have Hampton than Glavine. Age and salary differences aside, why would they think that's a good idea? "

The first set of $ numbers, when Atlanta was paying everything up front but nothing on the back end, did insinuate that. But the revised numbers, where Atlanta pays $2 mil in 2003, $2 mil in 2004 and $1.5 mil in 2005 but everything in the final three years suggests the exact opposite.

$2 mil is *half* of what they paid for Albie Lopez last year. It's only a half mil more than they (or their insurance) paid Dave Martinez last year. It's only a mil more than they paid Keith Lockhart.

The new numbers suggest, rather strongly I think, that the Braves plan on going out and getting at least one of the big FA pitchers, be it Glavine or Maddux. Regardless, the money they're paying Hampton over the next three years is already recouped by not paying Albie Lopez and Dave Martinez. They have every dollar they had last week to persue Glavine and Maddux.

Any info on the throw-in? Ryan Baker, 24 year old reliever. I can't recall seeing his name on any lists of Braves top prospects.

That's because he isn't one. He spent most of this season in high-A ball at Myrtle Beach as a setup reliever (he did get a few innings at AA Greenville). He was old for the level, and posted a 3.72 ERA in one of the most pitcher-friendly environments in the minor leagues.

Relievers are far less valuable than starters and all but couldn't the Braves have given up someone in AA or AAA. I mean, why would Loria give a damn? Spoonybarger showed some nasty, NASTY stuff at times.

If the Braves have any clue at all, they'll sign David Ortiz, who was just released by the Twins to make room for their Rule 5 pick. He's a huge upgrade over last year's options, and certainly over Helms.

What was the point of this for the Brewers? And for that matter, what is the point of the Brewers themselves?

All the comments about why do the Brewers exist following the signing of Royce were over blown, but the Brewers had exactly 3 major league assets Sexson, Sheets, and a surprisingly effective bullpen with the knack for replacing guys. Only one out of that trio was likely to be dealt for help. We got and blow it on Wes freakin Helms! I here Montreal has a pretty good team. As someone else said Colorado got Cust for Mike Myers.

Ray King would have had a fair amount of value in July, when a contending team needed to add a LOOGY down the stretch. Instead, the Brewers dealt King when there were plenty of relievers on the market during the offseason, and got less than nothing in return. Blech.

"However, take a look at Fred's performance at the TED. He doesn't have the juice to reach the bleachers in the power alleys. He does just fine in bandboxes like Tropicana, Wrigley and the old "Launching Pad" but at the TED he sends majestic flies to the warning track with regularity."

1) Over the last 3 years, McGriff has hit 4 HRs in 37 ABs at Turner Field, with a .622 SLG and a .979 OPS. There are obviously sample size issues, but overall I'd have to disagree with your observations about his power.

2) PLEASE don't call Turner Field "the TED". It's a pathetic and embarrasing ripoff of the nickname of Bank One Ballpark coined by some of the less bright members of the media in Atlanta. Please don't humor them.

One, what good does moving Castilla to first do them, he was fine defensively. It's his bat that was the problem

Two, sad to see Helms go. It looks to be a good trade, and Helms needs some regular at bats to develop...But i've always liked for some reason. He's from my home state, always appeared to be a good kid and all.

Ortiz and Moss are both very tradable commodities. I think Sabean took the cheaper, similar pitcher now because he didn't want to be stuck with unacceptable offers for Ortiz. If he can't flip Moss for cheap outfield help, he's rid of Ortiz' salary. But teams like the Expos/Reds/etc..., should be more interested in what Moss is making, and can offer low-salary in return.

I've wondered if Marquis may not be better off for a few years in the bullpen, anyway. He just hasn't been able to consistently go deep into games, and I want to think his splits are stronger in the early innings.

It's all up to Maddux and Boras now as to whether Maddux accepts arbitration. Boras may well look at the rest of the rotation and presume that he won't be able to leverage arbitration into a longer term deal, though.

I know people rarely pay attention to the hitting ability of pitchers, but with Ortiz and Hampton in the rotation the Braves have a subtle little offensive edge. The Sabermetric Encyclopedia shows them combining for 16 RCAP in 2002. Of course, they need every edge they can get on offense.

It strikes me as odd that the Phillies, who so pubilicly announced their search for another pitcher have been unable to land just one. Yet, the Braves, whose two best pitchers, and for that matter two of the games best pitchers, go on the market. And while some of the moves my be a tad risky, they have managed to set up another good veteran rotation, getting byrd, ortiz, and hampton. If they retain maddux, they potentially have one of the best rotations in baseball (again).

I think the upshot to this signing is that Kevin Millwood will find a new home in the next week. Maddux could come in at 20 million, and they'd be way over budget - they'll need cheap alternatives like Marquis.

Aside from the rules against trading Byrd, I don't really see the logic in moving Giles/Pitcher for Hill/Karros if the money's a wash. If you're not dumping salary (i.e. Millwood for Nick Johnson, which I would do in a heartbeat) then just stick with the rotation as is, stick Marquis in long relief/RH setup and find Matt Franco's number again.

Or just sign Fred McGriff to something not-too-stupid and be done with it.

Can anyone explain why the Braves would give a top-flight starter away? And to their division rival? Surely they could have gotten one of the players (Nick Johnson, Shea Hillenbrand, whoever) bandied about in the Colon talks?

I have no recollection at all about Fick's defensive capabilities behind the plate. I'm sure someone will enlighten us on that. If he's not awful, he'd be a big help to the Braves if (when?) Javy gets hurt.

If that happens, Hernandez becomes the closer because of his "pedigree" and the Braves run is over.

Why is that? If Smoltz can handle starting, I'd take 200 innings from Smoltz over 80 in nominally high-leverage situations. The Braves bullpen is made up of a few situational lefties and a bunch of 'them guys', and I see no reason why Hernandez would be a better or worse choice for closer than anybody else, except maybe Darren Holmes.

Jose Cabrera was going along quite nicely last year until the Brewers started playing with him as a starter. After two starts (including 5 shutout innings against the Cubs on May 18), things went downhill fast. The Brewers had him face one batter on two days' rest after that start, then ran him out there the next day in a rout to take a beating (6 runs in 1 2/3 IP, including 4 HR). He wasn't the same after that, and really got worse after he was left to take another beating as a starter (Aug. 24 vs. Pittsburgh -- 11 ER, 11 H in 5 1/3 IP, 116 pitches). I think that qualifies as pitcher abuse!

Don't forget that Cabrera posted a 153 ERA+ in 2001 with Atlanta. He's worth a shot for the Twins.

General consensus seems to be that this is 1) another St. Leo Reclamation Project (tm), and 2) Hampton/Byrd/Ortiz insurance via the Smoltz-back-to-rotation route.

I agree wholeheartedly on #1. I promised myself, after the Holmes/Hammond miracle, that I would never question the acquisition of reasonably priced bullpen arms, no matter who they were. Question the offensive moves? Yes, certainly. All the time. But when it comes to the pen, In Leo We Trust.

As for #2, I see the logic quite clearly, and I understand the "if Smoltz has to start then that's a problem" argument. But isn't it just as likely that Smoltz is Jason Marquis insurance? Fifth starter workload for Smoltz' arm? Marquis to the bullpen where (if he falters again in 2003) his two pitch repitiore and "fastball fastball fastball" mentality might be more successful?

And doesn't the fact that we can all easily put together these contingency plans suggest that the Braves' staff, top to bottom, is once again strong via replaceability? Smoltz goes down? Hernandez and Holmes are there. Problems with the rotation? Give the ball to the former CYA winner every fifth day. Ray King getting crap for being a former Brewer? "Hey, the 40 year old was a Royal!"

For $600,000 and with the St. Leo Experience behind him, this is not a bad signing.

And here is another question: Many of you are speculating about Smoltz returning to the rotation - is there any other case, in MLB history, of a successful starter moving to the bullpen, being extremely successful there, and then being moved back to the rotation (and succeeding?)?

Lots of pitchers have moved from rotation to bullpen (Eck, for one) and been very successful in both places, and I imagine a few have moved from bullpen to rotation (Lowe) and been successful in both places, but has anyone ever made two moves and been successful in all three places?

I would be mostly interested in pitchers who, when they were in the bullpen, were the closer (had majority of team's saves).

For example, if Derek Lowe was someday converted back to a closer, he would be the kind of player I am talking about (closer-starter-closer).

Al McBean made two switches (starter-closer-starter) but wasn't especially successful on his second go-round as a starter. In 1962 he won 15 games for the Pirates, in 1964 and 1965 he saved 40 games (combined), and in 1968 he returned to the rotation, winning 9 games in 28 starts. Those two starting years (1962 & 1968) were the only two years, in his career, in which he got more than 8 starts.

Bobby Shantz also made two switches (starter-closer-starter). Between 1952 and 1953 he went 42-17 as a starter; in 1956 he was the "closer" for the Kansas City As (he saved 9 games; the team had 18). In 1957 he went 11-5 in 21 starts, with a 147 ERA+. Thereafter he mostly relieved, though never as the closer.

Bob Shaw made two switches as well (starter-closer-starter). Between 1959 and 1962 he went 58-42 as a starter (with his ERA+ ranging from 93 to 139); in 1963 he saved 13 games (out of 25 team saves); in 1965 he went 16-9 with an ERA+ of 137 as a starter.

Hoyt Wilhelm makes the list as well (closer-starter-closer). In 1953 he saved 15 games for the Giants; in 1959 he won 16 games for the Orioles as a starter; this was his only year with 20 or more starts; in 1961, 1963-1965, and 1970 (at age 46!) he was his team's closer, being credited with at least 50% of his team's saves in each year.

Here are the list of (post 1949) players who were closers (had >= 50% of team saves) at least once in their careers and were also "successful" starters (>= 20 starts and >= 15 wins) at least once in their careers:

If you are using a DIPS-type system, shouldn't that *improve* Hernandez's ratings? The Royals allowed a BA on BIP of .296, the Braves .270. Similarly, Hernandez' own $H of .323 was significantly worse than his own team's figure. So Hernandez benefits twice: (1) better defenders AND (2) likelihood of reverting back towards team norm.

I haven't incorporated team defensive predictions yet. That's down the road. There has to be some study of defensive age curves first.

Hernandez' DIPS ERA for 2002 is significantly lower than his real ERA. It was higher in 2001, however and almost a full run higher than his real numbers in 2000.

There's also the real issue of aging. While I've gone through enough data to know that there's really very little decline in pitching performance through the 30s, that changes when you look at 37-40 year olds. Hernandez losing some of his fastball is pretty dangerous for him; without the plus fastball, batters are going to be able to watch the splitter miss the strike zone.

Lastly, there's the problem that I did a ton of work on the spreadsheet yesterday in the middle of the night (just to make projections, there are some 50 columns) and I dropped a very important digit off of dSO which boosted Hernandez' ERA by about 3-tenths of a run.

Per Michael Wolverton, Hernandez's Adjusted Runs Prevented (a better measure of reliever performance that ERA+ I think) in 2002 was 3.4. While not embarrassing, this trailed everyone who got significant relief innings for the Braves (including Lopez and Spooneybarger) and badly trails the incumbents Smoltz, Holmes and King. But it does suggest the possibility that with some help from Mazzone and a better defense he can be well worth the money.

Please, the Braves system has been kept in good shape (Wainwright, Betemit, Marte, Francouer, McBride, and a whole boatload of other good pitcher) to keep them stocked with good, young, cheap talent for at very least the next 5 years.

Ya know, I don't think much of this either. But I've pretty much given up on looking at the twisted wreckage that the Braves pick up and saying "That'll never work." 'Cause half of the time, it does...

Mazzone's secret peptalk: "Just go out there, and stop with all the sucking. Focus on being good. Sure, sucking is fun, but only once in a while. Most the time, you're better off pitching well. So, just do that. And remember, don't go sucking out there. Okay, you're now an ace reliever. Go out there and throw 80 innings with a 2.50 ERA."

Dan, the power here (Foggy Bottom in DC) only flickered but part of our campus just got power back yesterday. I walked down to the Potomac around 7pm and talked to some newscasters who couldn't believe someone was stupid enough to actually walk to the river during a hurricane. Anyway, if you're curious about how a college student spent the hurricane, check out my hurricane page.

Little Sarge is a pretty good outfield backup, and he won't kill you if he needs to fill in as a starter for a couple of weeks. He was a bloody miracle for the Pirates in '01, coming along just when the team needed him most.